to me that things are sorted, it doesn't mean break down. deadlock means they're stuck, but it doesn't mean things have broken down and that nobody is coming back to talk again. so i think what it looks hard is probably not as bad as it might be. ok, and it may go to george in budapest, but georgia, the u. s. and, and russia have been talking about these things for 30 years. okay. i mean, i'm all for talk, but i'm for substance as well. i mean, the russians presented one document to nato. want to the united states, essentially, they were treaties and they, they want them to be legally binding and they want him to be public here. so i have to agree with mary. i mean talking is okay, but this is what the u. s. and it's nato allies are the best dad. go ahead. i agree with you. yes, it's true. talking is good. as long as you're talking, you're not shooting. the problem is that russia has before with these set of demand. and there's nothing new about them. and it's something that they

feel very strongly about, and they feel that they have to be addressed, and they can't just be what would be farmed off forever with point story. so let's build some mutual confidence measures and then we'll have a greater transparency about military exercises because that's sort of stuff. that's just the staple of nature, russian relations. russia is very, very insistent upon no further nato expansion. very concerned about that. and therefore they want to see some kind of action on the part of. busy the united states and nato, which it would show that they have no interest into the nature of expansion. but just simply going to talk then ultimately i think we're still going to go on trying to corral. as many of the former republics with us as in tomato as possible. so maybe tomorrow, but you know,

next week or the week after we go to internet here. i mean 30 years. yeah. the, the, the alliance need to alliance has doubled inside more than doubled in size. here, after all this talk here, let me quote the, the russians deputy foreign minister. he says that the west is lost, the art of deal making and has been reduced to threats and sanctions. i mean, that seems a very fair characterization to me. yes sir. mm hm. and this is, this is missing as being long ago would you? and we see over the years, as you mentioned in assess, yes, this has been an ongoing and ongoing debates between russia and the u. s. nicer or and maybe talk about 99 seats that we can't really talk about now. russia national security interests 19 ninety's because there was no one in russia. so late, those demands, are we talking about the past, past few decades?

ever since the foreign concepts for a policy concept, the 2000 russia as in reasserting herself and what he forwards a list of demands regards to security and nato time. and time again, has been ignoring as if we look at the all the ways made her last. nancy 9099. ne, in 20 it's hands miss others as infrastructure and check republican poland, which is a major, major issue. you're in the ocean and i wasn't ministration as well. i assume this is definitely the right sign. right. sign for this is mary, i mean, a russia, it said that nato should no longer expand east, were particularly with ukraine in georgia. but let's all, that's all be frank here, and ukraine really is already be a factor. we're member of, of nato. and the u. s. is continuing to send arms their army of greater

lethal capacity here. i mean, the russian say we don't want to see nato expand to include ukraine, but if they, they move these types of systems in, we're getting a reversed cuban missile crisis. are we? well, i've been very interested that with this, this new term that has appeared, which talks about ukraine not being in nato, but nato being in ukraine. and i've, i've actually been surprised. and this is not really anything new, but in the, in the past for a franco government in, in ukraine. what we saw was not just joint training exercises between nato and ukrainian forces and supplies of equipment to make it compatible with, with, with nato. what we also saw were nato officials, actually serving in quite high advisory positions in the defense ministry in care

and hold. when i 1st heard about that, which was, i mean, it must have been 56 years ago. i was really surprised about that because i knew there was european union involvement in the economy in ukraine. but the idea that there was such defense involvement by nato. and i thought that was very questionable. and, but i also think you have to look at it. you have to say, well, whether it's nato in ukraine or whether it's ukraine in nato. the fact is that i think the americans are on record. this administration is on record. as saying that the u. s. nato would not fight for you crying right. and got to me that means that nato membership is not, is certainly not imminent. and you go back to 2002008 the bucharest summit. whether

it's this huge disagreement between the americans on the one hand and some europeans but or, or being in favor of ukraine and georgia, joining the, joining nature. and on the other hand, france, germany and some other nato members who were absolutely cheat again. and they fudged the final statement to leave it open whether that would be membership or not . and the fact is that in those he is 1213 years since there's actually phoenix no progress on membership. but those 2 countries, and i don't think the will be because that split still exists and later. yeah, but i mean george with it. that's a distinction without a difference. ok, because and, and my disagreeing with mary, but it's a distinction without a difference because the threat level in the way the russian see it is only being in hands here. so, i mean, we can have deadlock and we can, you know, talk, talk,

talk. but the russians are saying, this threat is, is imminent here. that's why keep using, you know, the cuban missile crisis in reverse with kennedy told krisha get those missiles out or we'll do it ourselves. i think it's apt, george. yes, i think so. and the way it works with the united states and nato is that even if something is the odds now all of to morrow and next year or in 5 years time they get, they just going to go on pushing and pushing and pushing, which is what they've been doing aah with ukraine. i mean, after all, de facto nato membership was part of the e u association agreement. that usually overture or refuse to sign, but which are, you know, his b, his successes this side. and so therefore, it's already baked in that ukraine becomes

a de facto member of her nature of the problem is also that they could well be some kind of of trauma cation, some, some incident, whether it's a grain. oh, you using force against the people of the dumbass, whether there be somebody, they told us military who do something of provocative on the russian border and russia will be forced to intervene. this is something that they talk a great deal about that they, the grains, or the americans might say some kind of a provocative incidence to trigger a russian intervention. and once you trigger a russian intervention, then the resistance to having your grading nato will disappear because suddenly, why god, we're, we've got the horrible russian menace threatening all of europe. we have to do something for ukraine. so ukraine could then become accepted by everybody as a member of nato. also the staging, some kind of a provocative incident. well,

i mean, entrance that, i mean, the ukraine could become part of nato one day, but it will not be the same geographical size that it is now. ok, i think you know, it, my, my, my point is here because it's not expansion into you ukraine. it is to, to extinguish a threat that is in ukraine. there is a distinction there. go ahead, ernst. well, certainly it's a, it's a, it's a tricky. it's a tricky issue with russia will actually cross over the water and go into boston and see crane on one hand, the russian russian representatives always spoken about sobering scene, respectful, sober, and scenes total accuracy. but when it comes to the saying that rushes interest, especially for those who have those who are part of what's called what's known as russian. well, i sent you seen examples of 2000 nights, the russian, ga standoff where russians were bats across the border. and 2014 rushes coming in

operation station in west unification in the east. and if we don't want to don't bass, what we need to keep in mind is that you have a certain amount of people that will rush past with russia is not allowing hunger reason owens similar initiatives. i mean, having carried out by hungary and poland elsewhere in europe, i had to now rotting passports to the those insurance i have to jump in here. i, we have to have, we have to go to hard break. and after that hard break, we'll continue our discussion on the geneva negotiation, stay with ah ah, with

price fixing is the problem. if you want a free market, you've got to let the market be free. you can have half of the market free. and then half the market fixed the you end up with the problem that we have today while our officers are facing in increasingly dangerous environments, we are seeing a growing debate about so called warrior cops. the term that i've heard in the militarization of police. this is an amber app vehicle we acquired through the 1033 program, very free program with the government program that funnels military property that is no longer use to local law enforcement with building an army over here. and i can't believe the people i see those thing an agency a me because it again a feeling that hey, you have to deal with our practice. who you putting in the uniform of the beds is

a powerful thing. and sometimes is like money in play tricks and people mind they think they go bad. no is the walk is out the door very bad. johns are coming. good news. you have job security because the world desperately needs that you have a good a

the welcome back across stock were all things are considered. i'm peter labelle. true, man. you were discussing the geneva negotiations, the the okay, let's go back to mary and london. let's change gears a little bit, mary. what could we possibly expect after, you know, after rush gate blood into policy? i mean, what american administration is going to make, quote unquote concessions to the russian, because it be akin to appeasement in its munich. and it's all these things we hear all the time. i mean, when i, when i look at the negotiators there, i mean, they intentionally wanted to talk a different game completely because their hands are tied. i mean, you know, the way the, the, the trump administration was treated, we're making in treaties to russia. there's this administration is going to go down that path because joe, by knows there's a lot of bins around. ok. they don't love joe biden. i mean, if,

if joe biden breaks the rules, cross is a lie and he can go to marry your thoughts. i wouldn't be quite so pessimistic as you because i think one of the young, one of the differences between the biden has only been in office for a year. and we had 4 years of trump before when trump's almost the so element of his foreign policy was to improve relations with russia. and the whole of the american security establishment. and the whole of the democratic party refused absolutely to let him do that. and yet, it seems to me that almost the moment biden came in, he's almost been doing in practice what trump wasn't allowed to do. he held a very early summit with the oh, with with porton. and they followed up by establishing all sorts of working groups, including a working group on cyber warfare,

which was completely extraordinary because that, that, that, that, that, that particular term, the very suggestion that the americans of the russians might talk about cyber under trump. those all hell was let loose. that was the last thing that anybody was going to happen. and yet it was one of the things that was named that went almost unmentioned as a result of the of the geneva summit. so it seems to me that, and you can look at the withdrawal from afghanistan to that this was something that trump had been trying and trying to do, but he couldn't do it. he couldn't get it past the political establishment in washington or the military establishment. biden managed to do that. yes, it was chaotic. yes, though. it problems with it. he did it. and it seems to me that he's pursuing quite slowly, quite quietly. the very same thing that trump was trying to do, which was to talk to russia,

to keep doors open and to try to make progress. and it was very interesting to me practically, on the eve of these geneva tall, the 1st or 2nd, 2nd grade level. that from the white house it was said that they thought that russia needed something diplomatic space over ukraine. and i mean, i'm sure that now for, for the, for the best out of 6 years and that russian needs to be, isn't diplomatic space. i the americans by nato, for that to be any useful outcome in ukraine. and it seems to me that i'd appreciate. okay, well, and george did the, does this administration or any administration want a good outcome? i mean, again, i'm after 30 years, so he marries right. talking about cybersecurity, that's great, but it doesn't change the calculus on the ground. i mean, again, that's just, you know, talking about issues on the margins. again, i want to remind everyone,

this summit was based on 2 documents. the russians had presented one to nato and one to the united states. and you know, we can talk about all these other things on the side, which are all nice and fine, but it doesn't change the calculus on the ground. and it isn't addressing the core issues that russia has made very, very public, very often. and pub, of too many different officials, different flora. i mean, they're very serious about this because we have the russian negotiator saying that the americans are just simply not serious people when it comes to these core demands. you know, i agree with you because one only has to listen to entity blink and the press conference last friday when he went on this extraordinary and to russian tirade leveling every kind of accusation, every single light in the book against russia. oh, they're wanting terrorism. they using chemical weapons, especially political opponents on european soil. they're, you know,

they've attack no, georgia, ukraine, an on and on on. and then you have to think what, what, what does the united states and nato really want? i think that quite happy to cause russia headaches. i mean, they, they think, but what they've done in ukraine is actually very nice. will that be a relatively low cost for the wes? they've given russia headache. why should they try to help russia sold this problem? if they really wanted the health brushes, so the problem they could do very easily, they could get on to the landscape and say, look them in the course. you know, it's clear what you have to do in order to comply with the bench the chords. please do so, and then this whole thing will be over. that's what they want. they, they like the fact that this war continues. it's a very, very painful for russia and whatever russia tries to go to read down very badly

on russia. so i don't see any real upsides for the, by ministration to do very much, to help out. roger with the exception of what they call the strategic stability to nuclear weapon. and that's an issue. i think there, there is a kind of a us interest in restraining the sort of the arms race when it comes to an intercontinental ballistic missiles. that's a separate issue from major to expand new the americans are very happy just just to make life difficult for russia. well, you know, in the same theme here and we got to earn spin out is we have nato steve self and berg. he said right before the summer, he said, nato states are fully prepared for a quote, new armed conflict in europe. i mean, what kind of language is going into a summit. ok to de escalate tensions and all of that. and what is the,

what does he mean by that? what i mean, how do you think he's defining what a military conflict is? because nato is already said, and the united states separately said, they're not going to intervene in ukraine. if there is a confrontation with russia, i mean, it seems to me, as usual from the nato chief suttonberg, just empty words, but it's loose rhetoric at the same time. go ahead, ernst, the new. nobody's out. i mean they certainly, it doesn't seem like they have the house and all that because a certain bag said one thing and white is quite the other by the said that was an american troops on the ground. the cran events rushing invasion which they keep talking about is not on the table. and britain's secretary of state for defense and wallace asset. a similar thing as well. not granting isn't a member states. and it is very unlikely that anyone's going to send troops, etc. crank, change russia, however, it's clear that biden's administration really wants to be close to europe if trump

didn't really care much for your very muscular strength. and it would everything in every way could biden's administration. ms. john nash, i'm mentioned that last year as part of ministration sees europeans as these children who need to be protected. they need the u. s. pastor nash and are going to be present in europe, and you see are for sure. and just nuggets are going to ukraine. it's very unlikely that they would ok, mary, would i want to go back to russia's core demands of the lead up to the summit. here is that if the united states and other made the nato countries continue to supply lethal weapons, the ukraine, we have to expect because it's been tell a ground for months now, rochelle will react, and that is why we had this meeting. ok, i think the russians are saying, you know, we put it on the board,

we've told you exactly how you feel. we know that for the past 30 years, you have no recognition of our legitimate security interest. we're stepping up in public. we want the world to know. this is why we have tensions here. and if you go over the line, we're go to react sanctions. you know, who cares. ok. because our national security is saying is it, is it when it's the challenge in an existential way, the russian is going to react to it? no one should be surprised. that's my major take away from this summit. don't be surprised if we go over your red line because you're challenging our red line, mary. i you think that at the moment it's a bit early to talk about people crossing other people's red lines. but i do think that the in the documents, the to treaty documents that russia handed to nato and to the us. that they're actually very, very interesting because there are ideas there that wouldn't necessarily mean not the u. s. is not going to accept everything that's in those documents,

may be almost nothing that's in those documents. i think nato is almost secondary here. and i think russia appreciates that they have to do with the united states. and i think the united states understand that to and i think that stolberg in particular, in the last 2 years has been very much out on a limb. i mean, if we go back to afghanistan again, the nato simply wasn't, it wasn't consulted. no arrangements were made with nato for the if the, for the ultimate withdrawal from, from afghanistan, even though it was in name and nato led operation, nato was ignored. and i think the same thing is happening over ukraine and russia. you're dealing with in very traditional terms, between the us and russia. but i also think that in the past, the been a lot of questions from not just the united states,

but from specialists and from politicians in western europe, in particular saying, we don't understand russia. we don't understand what does russia want? and my view of these to treaty documents is that nobody know can complain that they don't know what russia wants. it spelt out there in black and white. that is what russia wants. and i would say that is an opening position. russia wouldn't expect to get everything that it's, it's a demanding illustrated documents, but i think they need to be studied because nobody can complain anymore. they don't know what russia we not. okay. george 20 seconds will good. did they actually care what russia wants? 20 seconds, george. i think they, those attitude, the russia has been you on, on the soviet union. you do not deserve the respect that we, according to the soviet union, we have expanded nato. and we will go on trying to expand nato. not only will do we

want to get you granted, georgia and we want to go into the caucasus and then for the far east. and i think that, and there's nothing that you can do about that plate is avager. and russia said yes, we're not going to accept it. and there is something we can do on that note. there we've run out of time. any thanks them i guess in london, budapest and no be sad. and thanks to our viewers are watching us here at r t. see you next time and remember process roles. ah, ah, join me every thursday on the alex simon, sure. and i'll be speaking to guess in the world politics sport business. i'm show business. i'll see you then. mm.

now we have e cigarettes, i just heard that it was a healthy alternative to cigarettes. do we trust tobacco companies with their message that these products are actually going to reduce these sugars are raging the tobacco with oh, is your media a reflection of reality? in the world transformed what will make you feel safe? isolation or community? are you going the right way? where are you being led? direct? what is true? what is faith? in the world corrupted. you need to descend a join us in the depths or remain in the

shallows. yes me. oh great. looks great. in fact will i? lisa typical, there is only 9, but already a diversity students that away m slash a new model wouldn't let me up. you got the last, there's doors to deal with the video. then mobile choice able to go with no recalls with now bush lighting and of course with them when you're special, i will the yeah my but i did say the 1st way and of course to get with the player that was to get the she was in your mind, it was something that it was if the w 30 where little was no to call it john noise

with. so lose with when you most of judge that he blanca from his teacher was also risen. is bernice a real good, good. 6 0, when i went shopping wrong, i just don't hold any world to say proud disdain to come to the advocate an engagement. it was the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look so common ground so called enhanced interrogation techniques used by the u. s. officials were basically designed as techniques to break down the human mind. if you

force a human being to stay in a certain position doesn't take very long to the pain involved to become absolutely excruciating. but nobody clean things around you. you are doing it to yourself. we started adopting those techniques when i was stationed in mosul. among them were stress, positions, sleep deprivation, inducing hypothermia. there's already beginning to be evidence that these old techniques are now being used on immigrant and children, whatever you do or more comes from home. nobody has been held accountable for the torture that happened in the past and the moral authority that made america with the shimmer of effective interrogation. with

nato has been trying to wind a colt bucks a cold war time dots from a russian press briefing up the high stakes thoughts in brussels. nato understands the principle of the in the visibility of security selectively. if nato applies a policy of containment against russia, moscow will have to take a calendar with wal nate, so rejects russia's red line of not letting ukraine join the military alliance saying the block 6th bunch and spreads. freedom and democracy also to come, britons prime minister apologizes for attending a low down, dig spot in the back garden at noon, but then back in 2020. it was the 1st time he admitted his presence, but now he says he thought it was a work event.